Phenomenology - A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.

Ontology - philosophical inquiry into the nature of being itself, a branch of metaphysics.

Actually, ontology probably wasn't the best choice of words to represent science. That would be more relevant for Philosophy. Allow me to change that to...Empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Yes, I should have added that. Wallace is careful to distinguish places where there might be some worth in making comparisons and some where there is not.

green wrote: All knowledge is compatible for the knowledgeable -- it's those who are ignorant and assume there can only be one valid way of knowing and not others is when we have a problem.

I definitely agree that there are different forms of knowledge, but I think we can (not necessarily accurately) make some distinction between "useful" and "useless" forms of knowledge. I.e., just because one accepts different forms of knowledge doesn't mean one has to accept ANY form of knowledge that comes out of someone's mouth (or keyboard)...

For example, some forms of "alternative medicine" may be helpful for certain ailment, though almost impossible to prove "scientifically". Some others are most likely to be dangerous quackery.

On the topic of phenomenology vs. ontology, there are some nuances that need to be teased out. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I was browsing E-Sangha and it turns out there is a discussion about the very topic in the Buddhist philosophy forum. I shan't paste the url here; don't know if it is appropriate. But it is worth a read.

The ability to influence a mind merely requires the right technology and the right know-how -- either alter its physical components (modern western approach) or alter its surrounding conditioning factors (i.e. the Buddha's dialectical arguments which caused people to spontaneously snap out of ignorance, meditation as a tool for enlightenment, seclusion, vinaya and the five precepts, etc.).

If the Buddha is more than than merely a good scientist, then he should be (and is) capable of doing more than merely appealing to the evidence at hand, only to have it fall on deaf ears. The miracle of instruction is truly a miracle.

It is true that we cannot use science to verify if someone is enlightened or another noble state, but there have been studies that compare meditators to non-meditators and there have been findings of positive results for those who meditate.

For example, A study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, in year 2004 showed that meditation not only produces calming effects, but also lasting changes in the brain.

Researchers found that monks who spent many years in Buddhist meditation training show significantly greater brain activity in areas associated with learning and happiness than those who have never practiced meditation. The researchers measured brain activity before, during, and after meditation using electroencephalograms. They compared the monks to a group of people who had no meditation experience. They found striking differences between the two groups in a type of brain activity called gamma wave activity, which is involved in mental processes including attention, working memory, learning, and conscious perception.

The Buddhist monks had a higher level of gamma wave activity before they began meditation, and this difference increased dramatically during meditation. In fact, the researchers said that the extremely high levels of gamma wave activity were the highest ever reported. The monks also had more activity in areas associated with positive emotions, such as happiness.